Depending on winds aloft, direction, speed, traffic, and distance, sometimes getting out right ON the line is critical.

I would prefer to not land off when possible.

Well, I said I'd answer you so I will. Your statement is absurd because there is no instance that it is critical to exiting right on the line in order to not land out. It is critical to not exit over the line if you are not allowed beyond a certain distance from the DZ, but you can exit as close as you want, avoid traffic, and land on the DZ no matter what the wind is doing. Your statement makes more sense for those without a wingsuit. Experienced wingsuiters can fly themselves to a good deployment point no matter how close to the DZ they exit. So I stand by my original post on this subject. Make people aware of limits. Instruct pilots to not let anybody out beyond those limits. No more wingies flying around where they're not supposed to. Very little to do with wingsuit instruction for beginners.

John, the problem with your stance is that the USPA does not have compulsory or comprehensive incident reporting. Even if we could magically get all incident captured from now on, it would take 2-10 years to gather statistically useful data.

In the absence of such a framework, we are forced to work off anecdotal evidence. While it is not ideal, implementing a process improvement can't raise the rate. It may be a waste of resource or ineffective, but surely no-one can argue against better educated jumpers?

Before you repeat the line about swooper, freefly etc, I fully support the route the.USPA has taken on canopy courses and hope to see more work in the future.

I just read an interesting safety bulletin in parachutist where a premature deployment about ripped off the elevator of a 182. How does that play into all of this? It was far worse damage than any of the photos I have seen of a Wingsuit tail hit.

John, the problem with your stance is that the USPA does not have compulsory or comprehensive incident reporting. Even if we could magically get all incident captured from now on, it would take 2-10 years to gather statistically useful data.

.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

John, the problem with your stance is that the USPA does not have compulsory or comprehensive incident reporting. Even if we could magically get all incident captured from now on, it would take 2-10 years to gather statistically useful data.

.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

If I understand correctly the tail strike data is from the insurance claims? Surely all they care about is the cost of the.damage, not the root cause?

John, the problem with your stance is that the USPA does not have compulsory or comprehensive incident reporting. Even if we could magically get all incident captured from now on, it would take 2-10 years to gather statistically useful data.

.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

If I understand correctly the tail strike data is from the insurance claims? Surely all they care about is the cost of the.damage, not the root cause?

Actually they care about Cost, Cause & Frequency...

That data in part, is how premium costs are determined. Loads more stuff goes into the equation of course , but those are the big three.

It's why a 55 year old male living in the boonies pays considerably less for insurance on his Volvo than does a 20 year old driving a Camaro living in Ventura.

Of course what EVER data the insurance company's actuary experts compile and analyse they 'guess' at the unknown entity.

They have no way of getting an actual statistical representation regarding the cost, cause & frequency of accidents/incidents that are not reported.

The folks determining insurance coverage premiums would love to have hard reference data as to every what, when, where, why & how 'much' ~ whether a claim was made or not.

The folks payin' those premiums sometimes simply repair or replace 'off the books' in order to stay off the radar, because in certain circumstance it's more cost effective to do so in the long run.

But hey, I'm sure that never happens with aircraft owners...but even if it did, they would no doubt be eager to let the skydiving community know all about it, so that we could discuss it on the world wide web.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low." Given how USPA headquarters manages safety conversations, probably a good thing.

A circulating rumor says that the strike chart includes "a foot hitting the door on exit." This is not accurate. A wingsuit tailstrike by definition is "A portion of a body or rig striking a horizontal stabilizer." It can't be defined by "exit" as there are also one confirmed historical strike (not on the charts) where the vertical stab was struck through a combination of pilot error and wingsuiter error after launch had occurred. Repair cost was nearly 100K$.

We need a common curriculum IMO. I will vote accordingly. We do have a common curriculum-it's in the SIM.

Second thought to that....it's been mentioned that no one reads the SIM. New AFF students are required to buy USPA membership, but not the SIM that they're supposed to learn out of-that never made sense to me....

>New AFF students are required to buy USPA membership, but not the SIM that they're >supposed to learn out of-that never made sense to me....

?? The SIM is free to download. Do you suggest that by making it cost $$ and then requiring new students to buy it, it will be read more often?

Not sure, but I think he was just suggesting that it be made a requirement for students to have, instead of just a 'suggestion' that they purchase it or download it. As it is, it's similar to going to class at school, and being able to buy or download the book "if you want to."

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low." Given how USPA headquarters manages safety conversations, probably a good thing.

A circulating rumor says that the strike chart includes "a foot hitting the door on exit." This is not accurate. A wingsuit tailstrike by definition is "A portion of a body or rig striking a horizontal stabilizer." It can't be defined by "exit" as there are also one confirmed historical strike (not on the charts) where the vertical stab was struck through a combination of pilot error and wingsuiter error after launch had occurred. Repair cost was nearly 100K$.

While I understand your reasoning behind confidentiality agreements, Spot...I'm sure you can understand that it opens the door to the perception that the information you're relaying is hearsay. (Not suggesting that it is...but as I'm sure you know - and as anyone with a scientific of legal background knows - it's important to be able to verify the facts of claims.)

Again, not saying you're doing this, but I could easily come up with a list of false incidents where a deployment in the door nearly took down a plane, put them in a spreadsheet with non-identifying details, and talk about the rise of closing loop-related incidents over the past year.

While I know you and don't think that you're doing that, I'm sure you can understand why some people would question why you're not forthcoming with this information, if it's so important. If you need to maintain that confidentiality for the sake of protecting DZO's, or protecting your ability to jump at certain DZ's, I understand...but you should probably accept that doing so means not everyone is going to take you at your word, without some hard facts to back it up.

---

That being said, I think where the misconception about the "foot hitting the door on exit" comes from this Wingsuit Tailstrikes list that you posted previously. Line 8 lists an incident in which someone exited a Caravan flying a Stealth2: "Bad Exit opened full in doorframe. Hit back of doorframe with ankle." The injury was a broken ankle. There was no damage to the aircraft.

At first glance, that reads to me (and obviously, a lot of other people) like someone hit the doorframe and broke their ankle.

---

Back to my previous point, directly above that entry, there's also an incident that was from a "Dornier or Caravan," for which the injuries are uncertain, which reads a lot less like a verified incident and more like a story told by someone who watched a video on Youtube. If it was verified, wouldn't the type of aircraft and the injuries be known? What does "verified" mean, anyway?

I know it sounds like I may be drawing conclusions here - I'm not. But I am questioning (it's what I do - I've been burned by rumor mills and the telephone game before). And I think if you're leading this charge, you would do well to try and look at it from the other perspective, and question it as well. It will help you make a more compelling argument, without leaving things like this open to interpretation.

Because until I have something to back it up, all I can do is question it. I can't draw a conclusion either way (as much as I'd like to).

---

tl;dr - Human communication is flawed. And when only one person has access to the primary sources, we all potentially set ourselves up to be the victims of omission...or of flawed communication.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Quote:

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."

Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor."

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Quote:

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."

Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor." That’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.

That’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.

Sparky

Reach ya maybe, in a court of law you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. I am not trying to advocate that necessarily.

Let's look at it this way. If I am using a CI (confidential informant) to make drug buys off of a dealer. Then I in turn apply for a warrant to a judge. That warrant needs to be based off of probable cause. In court that CI WILL be brought to light. There is no way around it. A defendant has a right to face his accusers. That is why it is important to know the background of your CI's. If they have character issues or CH (criminal history) they will be flamed by the defense and worthless. Entire cases have been lost off of this in the past.

DSE is in this example applying for the warrant. WE are the judges (voting memebers) You can bet your ass the judge wants to know the CI's character and CH before signing that warrant.

I want the same.

He has stated anonymous examples of tailstrikes and known WS schools teaching bad exit techniques, but is not making the facts known. He won't name them. Is his assumptions based off of probable cause? I don't know, because he won't allow us to know.

I am not signing yet.

I personally think he may have got the diagnosis wrong. Sometimes good cops make honest fuckups. DSE is probably a good cop, with good intentions, but lets dot the I's and cross the T's here.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Quote:

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."

Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor." That’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.

Sparky If it were just a rant on the internet I would agree with you.

HOWEVER, this (absence of) evidence is being used to try to change the way our national organization works and affect the way USPA members vote.

The proposal is a wholistic approach to a number of issues that face DZO's, wingsuiters, and communities. The tailstrike issue only became urgent when an insurance agency jumped into the conversation thanks to a very unhappy DZO and a number of hysterical FB postings in August of 2012.

It's very unfortunate that this has devolved into (mostly) a tailstrike discussion. Tailstrikes were reasonably minimal in 2008 when this program was first proposed. They were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2008 just as they were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2012. The wingsuit fatality that occurred a couple days ago was not a tailstrike, for example.

The proposal is a wholistic holistic approach to a number of issues that face DZO's DZOs, wingsuiters, and communities. The tailstrike issue only became urgent when an insurance agency jumped into the conversation thanks to a very unhappy DZO and a number of hysterical FB postings in August of 2012.

So why wasn't it urgent before that? You had the data; why didn't you act proactively and focus on removing a clear and present danger to the sport instead of using it disingenuously to impose an advanced training requirement that is outside USPA's scope and none of its business?

In reply to:

It's very unfortunate that this has devolved into (mostly) a tailstrike discussion.

Unfortunate? It's critical! In fact, it's the only thing that matters.

In reply to:

Tailstrikes were reasonably minimal in 2008 when this program was first proposed. They were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2008 just as they were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2012.

I'm sure Mr Norris and the insurance companies will be happy to hear that the chief pusher of USPA wingsuit regulation thinks there is such a thing as "reasonably minimal" tailstrikes.

In reply to:

The wingsuit fatality that occurred a couple days ago was not a tailstrike, for example.

Off-topic.

This thread is about what we can do as individuals and as a community to reduce tailstrikes now, not lament how that discussion distracts from pushing forward your agenda to involve USPA in something that is none of its business.